Is THIS a good photo??

Jim Chinn · Jul 29, 2006

MurrayMinchin said:
Your right that we should always keep our weather eye on when a photograph was taken, and how that photograph may have opened unforeseen possibilities...but the photograph presented in this post appears to be an exposure / development test.

It's a good test shot.

Murray

While I like Weston, this particular image seems to be more a step in experimentation then anything else. Either a prelude to something better or maybe simply playing out a thread that had become worn and tired. From a purely visual standpoint it makes a good advertisment for the Eggplant Growers of America.

juan · Jul 29, 2006

I find the relationships of the curves in this photograph to be fascinating. I suspect tone and texture in the original print would be equally interesting, although you can't really tell from the on line image. Look beyond it being a photoraph of an eggplant on a plate.
juan

Lee Shively · Jul 29, 2006

"A couple of days ago someone mentioned that it seemed that we were only interested in discussing the technical aspects of photography here."

Yeah, whatever happened to that?

I would post something profound but I just got a brand new EOS 1n and I need to go play.

(But I actually think these threads going on right now are the most enjoyable I've read in months.)

Ed Sukach · Jul 29, 2006

I'm reminded of the enterprising character who purchased Picasso's wastebasket contents from the landlord who had rented a studio to the Maestro. Every day the contents; doodles, rough sketches, scribbles, unconnected ideas - would be collected. Some were unwrinkled, smoothed out, matted, framed - and eventually found their way to a commercial gallery, with LARGE price tags, and without Picasso's knowledge.

One can only imagine Picasso's FURY when he found them there.

blansky · Jul 29, 2006

As has been alluded to by others and irreverently mentioned by me in another thread is that all photographer take crappy pictures.

We love to put our heroes on pedestals and think they can do no wrong but every "artist" goes through transitions, has a bad day, gets horribly bored and even has periods of genius. (maybe)

But what is never mentioned is that they experiment, and some are failures. Perhaps they are housebound on a rainy week, or stuck inside in a cold winter, or their girlfriend left them, so they are depressed and they begin to "doodle" photographically.

Some of what is out there are his doodling. And if you asked him about those doodles of his floating around he would probably cringe, while people are falling over themselves uttering exquisite praise in between fainting spells.

This picture in question may or may not be that.

Michael

bob01721 · Jul 29, 2006

blansky said:
"... But what is never mentioned is that they experiment, and some are failures..."

Good point. There was an example of this at an Andrew Wyeth exhibit I saw recently. There were ten or fifteen sketches, watercolors, and tempuras done over a period of years that were nothing more than "studies" for his final painting called "Groundhog Day." Some of the studies included a person. Some included her dog, too. Most were done looking into her kitchen window. The final painting had none of these. It was done from inside the kitchen looking out.

All the other sketches and paintings were just "experiments" that "failed" to convey his final vision.

Charles Webb · Jul 29, 2006

Doug Thomson said:
Weston took this photograph in 1929 and while today it seems cliche, in 1929 it was not. Weston was a pioneer of the art form and was very much challenging the accepted tenants of the day - in fact in 1929 he was challenging the "style" that made him famous. In 1930, he said, "I want the stark beauty that the lens can so exactly render, presented without interference of "artistic effect." Now all reactions on every plane must come directly from the original seeing of the thing...only the rhythm, form and perfect detail to consider." In this light I don't think it matters if the print was a Weston original or one printed by Cole, it was a print that reflected the simple, detailed images, utilizing commonplace objects.

Now the question is, "Is this a good photograph", not "Do you like this photograph." I would postulate that the "goodness" of this photograph is very much related to the "period" in which the image was taken, and the intention of the photographer. To do other is to partake in a kind of artistic revisionism. So, while I don't particularly "like" the photograph, I think it is a "good" photograph.

n.

I find I agree very much with Doug's opinion here, it says exactly how I feel about the photo. It did not knock my sox off the first time I saw it, nor does it now, but with Dougs thoughts in mind I also think it indeed is a "Good Picture". If I were to receive it in a print exchange, I wouldn't be too disappointed. It however would never hang in a place of honor in my house.

Just my opinion,
Charlie...............................

bob01721 · Jul 29, 2006

Doug Thomson said:
"... I must say that I am a bit confused. Like or dislike the photograph as you will, but I know of no historical information that suggests that this photograph was an 'experiment' in any sense other than all our photographs are experiments in our struggle to define of our own view of the world..."

Doug, I was referring to Wyeth's "studies," not Weston's photograph.

Ed Sukach · Jul 30, 2006

I'll ask the reverse: Is this a "bad" photograph?

Donald Miller · Jul 30, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
I'll ask the reverse: Is this a "bad" photograph?

Please understand that I am a fan of Edward Weston.

Is this a good or a bad photograph? I see nothing from where I see it that elevates this photograph to the level of greatness. Nor do I see anything that would diminish it to obscurity.

I would hazard that if this photograph was made by some obscure photographer, it would not even be a matter for this discussion. It is the link to Weston that brings this to the fore.

This eggplant is a photograph of a "known object". It does not present the transitory aspect of his famous pepper photograph wherein the pepper becomes something different and greater then a pepper. That being that it (the pepper) becomes a study in universal form as apart from and in addition to a "known object".

Early Riser · Jul 31, 2006

Here's another photo of "Known Objects". This is what happens to all the fruit not consumed after a food shoot and when one is waiting for film to come back from the lab. No wonder I became a landscape shooter.

BTW the moon is a cantaloupe wedge.

blansky · Jul 31, 2006

Early Riser said:
Here's another photo of "Known Objects". This is what happens to all the fruit not consumed after a food shoot and when one is waiting for film to come back from the lab. No wonder I became a landscape shooter.

Do a series of these and they'll make you a fortune.

Michael

Early Riser · Aug 1, 2006

I did that like 20 years ago and I don't have the desire to work in color anymore. My point though was that fruit and vegetables don't have to be shot in the same old predictable ways. When I was a student at SVA my class was assigned to go and shoot peppers. Almost everyone went out and shot Weston like stills lifes of peppers. Me, I went out with firecrackers and photographed peppers exploding at night. I was pissed though I only got a "B" for the photos. But at least I was original.

copake_ham · Aug 1, 2006

Myself, being half Italian descent, said: "Eggplant Parmigana".

My wife, being a full Greek descent said: "Mossaka"

What say? You folks never took a picture of your food before cooking it up?

BTW: where did he get that weird looking "ribbed" eggplant anyway?

Oh, on the serious side - I think that for '29 it's a bit hackneyed as a still life. So perhaps it really was just a test shot of "what's for dinner, honey?"

Is THIS a good photo??

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency